Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc. v. Emerging Markets Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 291

ORDER re 282 10/7/2011 Joint Discovery Letter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/15/2011. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

12
Plaintiff,

No. C-09-02180 SBA (DMR)
ORDER ON OCTOBER 7, 2011 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER

13
v.
14
15
16
17

E M E R G I N G
M A R K E T S
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ET AL,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

18
Before the court is the October 7, 2011 joint letter submitted by Plaintiff and counter19
defendant Raytheon-AST (“AST”) and Defendants ViaSat, Inc. and Paradise Datacom, LLC
20
(“ViaSat”) setting forth the parties’ discovery dispute. [Docket No. 282.] The court conducted a
21
telephonic hearing on November 14, 2011. This Order summarizes the rulings made by the court on
22
the record during the November 14, 2011 hearing.
23
The court construes AST’s request to allow specific in-house counsel to receive access to
24
licensing agreements designated as “Highly Confidential -- ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” (“AEO”)
25
as a motion for relief from the AEO provision in the parties’ protective order. Given the court’s
26
concerns about competitive decisionmakers having access to licensing agreements, which is highly
27
sensitive information, the court does not find grounds to relieve AST from the AEO provision. The
28

1

existence of the AEO provision and related case law makes it clear that the question is one of

2

inadvertent disclosure. See In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 605 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

3

(“there may be circumstances in which even the most rigorous efforts of the recipient of such

4

[sensitive] information to preserve confidentiality in compliance...with a protective order may not

5

prevent inadvertent compromise.”); Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1471

6

(9th Cir. 1992); Intel Corp. v. Via Technologies, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 525, 529-530 (N.D. Cal. 2000).

7

Further, there is no evidence that the parties reached an agreement relieving them from the

8

obligations of the AEO provisions of the protective order. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

9

S

13

DONNA M. RYU
. Ryu
onna M
United States Magistrate Judge
Judge D

ER

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

A

H

15

LI

14

R NIA

Dated: November 15, 2011

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

UNIT
ED

12

RT

For the Northern District of California

11

NO

United States District Court

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

10

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C